Drugs or Demons? Teenager Found Biting Off Man’s Face in Florida Murder Case

Harrouff-compressed
Photo Credit: Facebook

TEQUESTA, Fla. — The Martin County Sheriff’s Office is working to make sense of a double murder case in Tequesta, Florida, where a teenage suspect was found biting off a man’s face.

According to reports, neighbor Jeff Fisher called 911 after he had been stabbed trying to stop an attack on 59-year-old John Joseph Stevens III and 53-year-old Michelle Karen Mishcon.

When police arrived on the scene, they found 19-year-old Austin Harrouff on top of Stevens and pulling the skin off his face with his teeth. Sheriff William Snyder told reporters that Harrouff was also “grunting and growling,” and “making animal noises.”

“When [the officer] got there, she realized that the offender was actually biting the victim in the face and causing what turned out to be some substantial trauma to his face from bite marks,” he told NBC Miami.

Police made several attempts to pull Harrouff off Stevens.

“Somebody not feeling pain, not responding to a dog bite, repeated stuns from a taser, taking three to four deputies and officer dog to get him off—that’s somebody with a lot more strength than you would normally encounter,” Snyder told CBS12.

The deputies were eventually able to pray Harrouff away and took him into custody. He is now in the hospital in stable condition.

  • Connect with Christian News

Stevens was pronounced dead on the scene, and Mishcon was discovered deceased in the garage.

Fisher was airlifted to St. Mary’s Trauma Center where he underwent emergency surgery for his stab wounds.

Snyder said that Harrouff didn’t know those he attacked.

“It’s inexplicable,” he told reporters. “One of the first things we try to do at a crime scene is try to understand the motive of the offender, because it is the motive of the offender that gets us going in the right direction. In this case, we can’t establish a motive; it’s ‘I don’t know.'”

Police are now investigating to determine if Harrouff was under the influence of drugs.

“We will be doing sampling of his blood to see if there was flakka or bath salts, which are known to cause what we call the excited delirium, and he did have some indications that we might be working with that,” Snyder said.

“Obviously we don’t know what predicated these acts,” attorney Michelle Suskauer, who will be representing Harrouff, told the New York Daily News. “But certainly, there are mental health issues that are going to have to be investigated here. We don’t know if anything is going to show up on toxicology or not.”

“I’ve got a psycho side and a normal side. I’ve lost my mind; help me find it,” Harrouff had written on his YouTube channel.

Other reports of similar instances have occurred in recent years. As previously reported, in 2012, witnesses reported seeing 31-year-old Rudy Eugene dangling from one of the light poles of a Miami causeway “acting like Tarzan,” and then pummeling 65-year-old Ronald Poppo, who was sitting in the shade on the sidewalk.

Eugene began stripping away the man’s clothing and tore at his face with his teeth. The attack lasted approximately 18 minutes before he was shot dead by police. Officers on the scene state that when they ordered Eugene to back away from Poppo, he turned at them and growled. Other eye witnesses say that he was acting “like a rabid dog.”

Toxicologists only found marijuana in Eugene’s system.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • sangrita

    Drugs.

    • The Last Trump

      “Eugene began stripping away the man’s clothing and tore at his face with his teeth. The attack lasted approximately 18 minutes before he was shot dead by police. Officers on the scene state that when they ordered Eugene to back away from Poppo, he turned at them and growled. Other eye witnesses say that he was acting “like a rabid dog.”

      “Toxicologists only found marijuana in Eugene’s system.”

      Drugs huh.
      Funny, never heard of marijuana causing THAT before…
      Must be some kind of invisible mystery drug that evades scientific detection.

      • axelbeingcivil

        Toxicologists also only found marijuana in the blood of Rudy Eugene in 2012, when he committed a similar cannibalistic attack. Most toxicology lab tests only look for a specific set of drug and metabolic by-product signatures. If someone’s trying something new – and there’s tons of new synthetic drugs out there; humans are creative – they might not detect it at all unless it’s similar enough to a drug of known chemical make-up.

        So, yeah, it could be a mystery drug.

        • Guest

          It really could be, but drugs open one up to demon possession too.

          • axelbeingcivil

            Why would you assume that?

          • Guest

            It’s a fact.

          • axelbeingcivil

            And what evidence do you have of that?

          • Guest

            Look up φαρμακεία (pharmakeia).

          • axelbeingcivil

            Yes, that’s a word frequently translated as sorcerer. How does that act as evidence that drugs act as gateways for demonic possession, or that demons even exist and can possess people?

          • Guest

            It’s the same base word used for pharmaceuticals, which refers to basic drugs. Anything that alters our minds opens us up to demon possession.

          • axelbeingcivil

            How is that ancient peoples believed medicine was a kind of magic any sort of evidence of that?

          • Guest

            That’s not what the word or Bible verses that use it, mean at all. Why are you making stuff up?

          • axelbeingcivil

            I’m not making anything up. I’m saying that people believed something isn’t evidence of the claim, or at least not strong evidence. Ancient peoples believing certain drugs induced magical experiences doesn’t mean they did or do; it just means they believed so.

          • Guest

            That has nothing to do with what I’ve shown you, nor with what the Bible says, so yes, you’re making things up.

          • axelbeingcivil

            Maybe you should elucidate your point, then.

          • Amos Moses

            And this is the “open-minded” atheist ………. open to everything ……….. except learning scripture and the truth ………….

          • axelbeingcivil

            Asking someone for more information is closed-minded?

          • Amos Moses

            you reject scripture ……….. you reject the evidence ………… so yes ……… you are closed minded …………

          • axelbeingcivil

            How can I reject evidence I’ve not been given?

          • Amos Moses

            you have a bible or access to one ……….. you reject it out of hand ………… you are in error ……

          • axelbeingcivil

            I didn’t reject anythig. I asked for clarification.

          • Amos Moses

            the clarification is scripture …………

          • sangrita

            He is evidence-phobic. Be prepared for lots of personal opinion though.

          • axelbeingcivil

            It’d probably have been smarter not to bother, yeah…

          • George

            why are you on this website then?

          • axelbeingcivil

            Another fair point. I suppose my answer would be that I’d like to offer a differing point of view and convince those who can be convinced. Amos doesn’t seem like one of those people.

          • Amos Moses

            Love it when they try to insult me to my face right behind my back ……….. FYI, i neither like you or dislike you ….. i do not know you ……….. you are one of the ones averse to the truth ……….. a self declared enemy of the gospel …. what do you want …. a lollipop ……..

          • axelbeingcivil

            Amos, every time I’ve asked you for what your standard of evidence is or what would convince you that you are wrong, you’ve refused to answer. How is stating a fact an insult?

          • Amos Moses

            You have no evidence that would convince me ………. and i have answered your question numerous times …… and since you seem too willing to NOT get the point ………. i will state it again …………..

            We all have the EXACT SAME EVIDENCE ………….. you reject part of that evidence ……… because you reject God ……….. and i have said it before and say it again now ……… you have no reliable view of the evidence ………… WHEN YOU REJECT PART OF THE EVIDENCE …… the evidence is not at issue ……….. IT IS YOUR VIEW OF IT …………. and it is in error …

            …… did you get it that time ………. in all caps for you again so you do not miss it again ………… THE EVIDENCE IS NOT AT ISSUE …… IT IS YOUR VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE …………. and it is in error …

          • sangrita

            The Bible is not evidence.

          • Amos Moses

            Yes it is ……

          • sangrita

            No, it’s faith. Not evidence.

          • Amos Moses

            Sorry …. no …….. it is eyewitness testimony and as such is evidence ….. as it is in any court in this land … and pretty much any other ………..

          • sangrita

            It isn’t, and furthermore you’re using it to say things it doesn’t say, such as anything involving transgenderism. Not mentioned. Not even known in that day and age, so how could it be mentioned?

          • Amos Moses

            Sin is mentioned ………. and sexual sin is specifically mentioned ….. and rather than make an exhaustive list for certain people to then invent new words and say it is not in the bible ….. it lists what is acceptable ….. and the rest is just sin …………..

            Is an extroverted suicide legal? …………………..

          • sangrita

            Yes sin is mentioned. Where does it say that transgenderism falls under the category of sin? Answer: it doesn’t, it’s merely your opinion that it does.

          • Amos Moses

            is an extroverted suicide legal ……………..

          • sangrita

            Don’t ask ridiculous questions, please. You know murder is illegal, it’s not “extroverted suicide”.

          • Amos Moses

            “You know murder is illegal, it’s not “extroverted suicide”.”

            So changing the name does not change the fact that it is wrong …….. and the same applies to scripture …… just because a particular word or phrase is not in it ….. does not make it not sin ……. the list of what is sin is there ………. sexual sin is there ………. idolatry is there …… and again …….. rather than make an exhaustive list for certain people to then invent new words and say it is not in the bible ….. it lists what is acceptable ….. and the rest is just sin ………

          • sangrita

            “does not make it not sin”
            The very awkwardness of that statement should tell you how wrong it is. Nobody is changing words for what already exists. It is very debatable whether homosexuality is discussed in the Bible. Transgenderism is a concept that probably didn’t even EXIST in those times so it’s not surprising it’s not mentioned. The problem with you Amos is you take all the things YOU don’t like, and try to hide them under the conveniently-provided umbrella of SIN which is pretty broad and vague to begin with.
            You’ve been guilty of many logical fallacies in the past, like the strawman argument, appeal to authority and No True Scotsman. We have to add another one to the list now, Argument from Silence. You are trying to say that if something isn’t mentioned in the Bible it’s a sin, and that doesn’t fly.

          • Amos Moses

            you are trying to say because a word is not in scripture ….. a new invented word …. and it is therefore not sin ….. error …………

            Just like saying “extroverted suicide” is not a murder because it is not in the law books …..
            that is a stupid argument …….. and you know it ……….. murder is murder and sin is sin ….. your fancy two-step around the truth does not change it ………….. but keep it up …. your dancing might make it rain ………..

          • sangrita

            If a “new invented word” has no basis with which to apply scripture to it, you can’t call it sin. Simple. “Bzjiwef”. There. Is bzjiwef a sin? According to you it is. And we don’t even know what it means. Doesn’t matter, says Amos, if it’s not in the Bible, it’s a sin. And you don’t see the problem with that?
            “Extroverted suicide” is murder (I guess, it’s a pretty bizarre phrase). No one would argue that and no one wouldn’t see that it’s simply six of one and half dozen of the other.

          • Amos Moses

            “If a “new invented word” has no basis with which to apply scripture to it, you can’t call it sin. ”

            So then you are saying an “extroverted suicide” is not murder ……….. it not in the law …… so i can do it ………. no consequences …………

          • sangrita

            I doubt that very much, first of all because “extroverted suicide” is an oxymoron – the word “suicide” already means killing the self, so it isn’t possible to be “extroverted” in that. And secondly because even if it DID mean what you want it to mean, it would be seen as a synonym for murder.

          • Amos Moses

            killing oneself is an introverted suicide …………… and again ……… just points out the oxymoron of “transgender” “gender dysphoria” and any other made up garbage anyone else wants to come up with …………… there are men and women ………. no more … no less …… and anything outside of that is SIN …………..

          • sangrita

            You appear not to understand the prefix “sui” nor what it means.
            And you seem to want to apply the definition of “sin” to, well, everything you don’t like.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Eyewitness testimony is known for being one of the least reliable kinds of evidence.

          • Amos Moses

            So we should shut down the entire legal system …………. because it is all built on it ……. not one court case is ever tried without it ………….. FAIL ………….

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “not one court case is ever tried without it”

            I’m no lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that’s a FAIL right there. There are other forms of evidence, you know.

          • Amos Moses

            Yep …. and they all rely on testimony to the court … no one just walks in drops a bullet or DNA sample and just walks out ….. there is testimony of their qualifications, and what they think they found and where they found it and what it means and it is all their eyewitness …… so if there is a fail …. look to yourself and your statement ………

          • axelbeingcivil

            Never asked you about what evidence I have. Never said what evidence exists. I asked what it would take to convince you that you’re wrong. Yet again, you just resort to stating that we apparently have the same evidence, merely different viewpoints, completely refusing to answer what I asked.

          • Amos Moses

            You have nothing to change it ………….. all that could change it is the evidence ……….. but your view of the evidence is in error ………… so you got nothing ……….. but nice try to twist the truth of what i said …………

          • axelbeingcivil

            I’m not saying I do have any particular evidence that would convince you; I’m just asking what sort would.

          • Amos Moses

            if i already have the truth ………. where is there for me to move but away from it ……… prove the truth a lie ……… good luck with that …………… men have been trying it for centuries …. they failed ……. you will fair no better ……… the truth is unassailable ……

          • Ax2root

            Do you recognize that people can know the truth about a matter even if you don’t ?

          • axelbeingcivil

            Yes? What relevance does that have here?

          • sangrita

            His answer to every question I ask is either THE CREATOR (his capital letters, not mine) or SIN.

          • Ax2root

            Hi Amos! You describe the emotionalism of those who don’t recognize a person can know the truth .

            Sad isint it?

          • Amos Moses

            Hey Ax ….. good to see your posts again ….. yeah …. very sad ……

          • Amos Moses

            Not an assumption ………

          • axelbeingcivil

            Then I look forward to the presentation of evidence of the existence of demons.

          • Amos Moses

            you do not accept the word of Christ ……….. so what would be the point …….

          • Ax2root

            Sorcery … demonic, often involving drugs.

            The Word of God refers to “the spirit of pharmakei ” in the last days

      • sangrita

        Well, that’s because your religion has told you that you should ascribe things you don’t understand to demons, that’s all.
        Never heard of “angel dust”? PCP?
        It could also be mental illness.
        But no. Let’s leap instantly to the completely unscientific conclusion that it’s SATAN.

        • Josey

          you can’t rule demon possession out either which causes insanity

          • sangrita

            Maybe you can’t, but I can.

          • George

            coming from a predisposition, I suppose you would rule it out.

          • sangrita

            A predisposition towards the accepted scientific explanations, that’s all. Nothing supernatural.

          • George

            oh, another smartarse ‘atheist’ who is more intelligent than every one else. why are you on this website then?

          • sangrita

            To show that you can still be a Christian and not believe science in the form of things like mental health and evolution is a “lie”.

          • George

            if your interested in true debate/fact finding, im all too happy, lets just agree to keep abuse, mocking and hate out of it.

            Now, lets get on to this thing atheists love to spout, “evolution is fact” when clearly it is not. (it seems to be a term used when atheists have nothing to present) Lets start here then, please read these quotes, and they are from evolutionists –

            “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches;
            the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils…all
            palaeontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt” (Harvard palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould)

            “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject- evolution-
            with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in
            illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity”
            (molecular biologist James Alan Shapiro)
            I have many many more. So, shall we start with these as the basis?

          • B1jetmech

            Nicely put.

          • Amos Moses

            Sorry to be so “mocking” ……….. but ………… BAM ………

          • TheKingOfRhye

            No, you’re not sorry, and “BAM” yourself, see my post above.

          • Amos Moses

            cant seem to find it ….. must have been deleted …..

          • TheKingOfRhye

            No, it was not.

          • Amos Moses

            i see it …….. ahhhh ….. the old “quote mine” defense ……. nothing like have a persons words come back and bite them in the buttocks …. feeble …….. who cares ………….

          • TheKingOfRhye

            What’s wrong with the “quote mine defense”, as you put it? Christians basically use just that all the time. Whenever I quote a Bible verse for some reason, there’s almost always someone who’s quick to point out how I took it out of context, or words to that effect. I’ll even admit, I’ve realized they had a good point some times.

            If it’s not a valid defense, then I can just cherry-pick whatever line I want from the Bible and use it to support my views, I guess.

          • Bob Johnson

            “Quote mining” is a much more nuanced problem. Basically it is a sound method to find quotes from a source to backup your position on a topic.

            However, the act of finding quotes to be taken out of context and presented so as to misrepresent the original author is an intentional misrepresentation, that is a form of lying, and as such does not help your argument. Or possibly, since many of these quotes are copied and pasted and are only taken at face value, the use of the quote may be attributed to naivety. Either way such use of quote mining does not reflect well in advancing a discussion.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “the act of finding quotes to be taken out of context and presented so as to misrepresent the original author” is exactly what George did, or maybe the site he copied that from did, with the Shapiro quote. The Gould quote was the “quote mine”, really, because parts of it were left out.

          • sangrita

            Exactly.

          • Amos Moses

            well a number of people here and on other christian forums …… try to use scripture all the time to say things the bible says in text but not in context ……… but when the tables are turned …. all of a sudden it is “not fair” out of context” “quote mining” and other such stuff as a five year old might pull ………….. so we seem to agree on that …. but i do not agree the quotes were out of context in this case …… in context, in scripture at least, is as much of the text that surrounds the proof text to give it its proper meaning …… and many “christians” are just as guilty of doing it as none christians …..

          • George

            ??

          • Amos Moses

            Sorry for the confusion …….. it was an Emerile LaGasse BAM …. good job ….

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Those are just examples of the classic creationist tactic of “quote-mining” or just flat-out misinterpreting things scientists say, to make it seem as if they are speaking against evolution when they are not. Gould was saying transitional forms are RARE, not that they do not exist. The point of that quote (as you might understand if you looked at the parts left out) was he was saying evolution is not a constant, gradual process, but that it has ‘stops and starts’, so to speak. And Shapiro is not trying to refute evolution, he’s a proponent of “non-Darwinian evolution,” which is the idea that evolution happens by mechanics other than what Darwin believed.

          • George

            lets be honest, if evolution were true, we would find millions of transitional skeletons/fossils showing every stage of change, say, if we came from apes, we would find an overwhelming amount of bones in every stage of change (ie half monkey, half man etc) same with the animal kingdom, if dinosaurs turned into chickens and quails, we would find bones in every stage of change/evolution.

            But what do we find? sketchy, minimal fossils which are subject to many different interpretations. And im supposed to believe, that, coupled with theories explains where we came from? Its only the denial of the supernatural that you guys are left clinging to straws. Re “quote mining”, nothing wrong with it, it adds extra weight to an argument showing that even experts in their fields are being honest.

            “It oughtnot to be overlooked that there are more disagreements and apparent contradictions within science itself than there are between science and religion” (Cambridge biochemist Malcolm Dixon)

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “if evolution were true, we would find millions of transitional skeletons/fossils”

            It is true, and we still don’t find that. The fossil record is incomplete, simply because not everything that dies gets fossilized, it’s pretty rare in fact. That there are not “millions of transitional fossils” does not prove evolution wrong.

            “Re “quote mining”, nothing wrong with it”

            Except that it’s dishonest. But hey, I can do it too then, I guess. Do you know the Bible says there is no God? It’s right there in Psalm 14. Oh, did I leave something out? But I thought there was nothing wrong with doing that.

          • George

            “It is true, and we still don’t find that. The fossil record is incomplete, simply because not everything that dies gets fossilized, it’s pretty rare in fact.”

            and here you are championing evolution as fact. Man, you’ve got more faith than me! Goes to show, people are willing to believe anything just to avoid the reality of a moral God who will keep account of everyones actions….

            with your quote mining statements, its really a diversion from your behalf because you cannot deny what is stated in these quotes. Here read this, is this out of context? –

            “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has” (Malcolm Muggeridge, british journalist &
            philosopher)

          • TheKingOfRhye

            So you really think “quote mining” is perfectly acceptable? I’ll repeat what I said before, since you seemed to give it no thought. Even the Bible says ” There is no God.”. So, we all should be atheists then, right?

            Evolution is not necessarily some kind of an alternative to believing in a god, either. I’m not one of them myself, but there are plenty of people that have no problem with believing in both.

          • George

            The quotes I have provided are well within the context of our discussion. They speak for themselves. You most probably find them uncomfortable and seek to divert the debate. Yes, I agree some people do believe in creation and evolution, but that is not the biblical stance in scripture. In scripture man was created separate from the animal kingdom and was brought into being fully formed as a human being.
            Our fossil record even backs this up, as well as in the Cambrian explosion, we find fossils all appear abruptly in their fully formed kinds with no intermediates. Again, for evolution to be true, we would have to find millions, if not more, transitional fossils clearly showing this change. But guess what, you’ll never find them because they don’t exist. Im not saying you have to believe in the God of the bible, but to blindly believe in a theory (evolution) without evidence is crazy….

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Yeah, sure, the quotes are “well within the context” in that they ARE about evolution, but you’re just misrepresenting what they say. I thought I explained that pretty clearly. In one case part of the quote was left out. In both cases, the people who said those things weren’t attempting to disprove evolution, far from it, in fact. Look at the Shapiro quote back there; he didn’t say it’s remarkable evolution is accepted, he said it’s remarkable “Darwinism” (natural selection) is accepted as an explanation FOR evolution. He’s not doubting evolution at ALL, he’s saying there’s a “non-Darwinian” explanation for it.

            You said “to blindly believe in a theory without evidence”….you know, in science, they don’t call something a theory UNTIL there is evidence.

          • George

            what part about this quote do you not understand? –

            “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches;
            the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils…all
            palaeontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the
            way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt” (Harvard palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould)
            He is CLEARLY telling you that first; there is a rarity of transitional forms, second; the diagrams in textbooks are only inference, and third; all fossil forms are abrupt.
            The truth my friend, is that people like Stephen J Gould and Shapiro and perhaps yourself only wish or hope God does not exist, and that is why your all willing to accept and unprovable and untestable theory….

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I thought I explained the rarity of transitional forms pretty clearly. Actually, wait a minute….I didn’t think of it this way before, but if there is a “rarity” of transitional forms, that means some HAVE been found. What would explain that BUT evolution?

            Gould wasn’t trying to disprove evolution; he just had a different idea of how exactly it happened. From a few sentences later in the essay that that quote is from: “The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.” I notice you, or whoever you got that quote from, didn’t include that part.

            And there you go again….well, you and a whole lot of other Christians, to tell the truth, always seem to come up with that accusation that people don’t believe because they “wish or hope God does not exist.” First of all, like I said, that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with evolution, like you even admitted. Anyway, I think it’s just wrong, the implication there that people somehow choose to believe or not believe. What about you? Did you choose to believe in God just because you wished or hoped he existed?

            “It is not uncommon for a person to realize that they have simply lost
            the ability to have blind faith in the claims made by religious
            tradition and religious leaders. They are no longer willing to shut away
            their doubts and questions. If this person then fails to find any
            rational reasons to continue believing in religious dogmas, those
            beliefs will simply fall away. Eventually, even the belief in a god will
            fall away — rendering that person an atheist, not by choice but instead
            simply because belief is no longer possible.” – Austin Cline

            Now that sums up rather nicely why I don’t believe. Not because of any wish or hope.

          • George

            Have been a Christian for about 15 years, prior to that, I was happy living without God, enjoying my sins, living in ignorance. Wasn’t until some God ‘botherers’ bothered me about the gospel. At first I rejected it, like most do, I resorted to the evolution excuse, ( I wanted to continue watching my porn, lying when convenient, enjoyed gossip, returning hate for hate etc) but when I began to look further into what the bible had to say, coupled with the very weak ‘proofs’ of evolution, I became convicted as the bible makes clear all those aforementioned sins will cost me my soul at death.
            Only the bible makes clear sense as to our origins, the reason for evil (both satan and our sin) and the sure most thing that we will all have to travel through: death. Not only that, through faith I know God personally, I have put my trust in his son Jesus Christ who was historically crucified for my sins. I will never go back to how I was prior to knowing Christ.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Well, there you go, then. You didn’t choose to believe.

          • George

            Your right. read this –

            He (Jesus) went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.” John 6:65

            and

            “The god (satan) of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers (you), so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” 2 cor 4:4
            This still does not excuse your rejecting of the gospel. God commands all men to repent and turn to him. He offers his gift of mercy to you through his son and offers you eternal life. Why reject that and spend eternal damnation in hell for all eternity?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            OK, are you beginning to see the point I was trying to make now? You didn’t choose to believe, and I didn’t choose to not believe.

            “Why reject that and spend eternal damnation in hell for all eternity?”

            Uh, no, I guess you’re NOT seeing my point if you’re asking that. Never mind then….

            I’ll just leave you with this thought (aka “the agnostic atheism wager”, a sort of response to the famous “Pascal’s wager”):

            “Whether or not you believe in God, you should live your life with
            love, kindness, compassion, mercy and tolerance while trying to make the world a better place. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will have made a positive impact on those around you. If there is a benevolent God reviewing your life, you will be judged on your actions and not just on your ability to blindly believe, when there is a significant lack of evidence of any one god’s existence.”

          • George

            Please just bear with me a little more. Please read this from romans chapter 1, and then give me your thoughts –

            “18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

            21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools”
            You see, the scriptures say you are without excuse. You wilfully reject God. As the verse says, you are clearly without excuse.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            The scriptures say am I without excuse. Okay, fine. I’m not looking for an excuse for my lack of belief, I just don’t believe.

            From things like that, it seems like God is just as concerned with being “glorified” and given thanks to, as anything the people he created do to one another, or if they try to make the world a better place or anything like that.

          • George

            People honour a king don’t they? look at the fanfare the queen gets! And here we have someone who is far far greater than a human king or queen, he is our creator God who scripture explains is robed in majesty, holiness and honour. You try and commit a crime against the queen, or the president, and see what happens. Far worse when we ignore, reject Gods offer of forgiveness to us (none of us deserve it or are worthy of it, its just the grace of God being extended to us) that’s why the punishment of eternal separation from God at death is severe.

          • sangrita

            “I wanted to continue watching my porn, lying when convenient, enjoyed gossip, returning hate for hate etc”

            This, to you, is what it means to be an atheist?

          • George

            of course it is. Being an atheist means you want no other authority over you. You want to be free to do what ever you like. Just please answer me this one question, and answer it honestly. If lets say for your sake, God appeared to you, and thus left you with no doubt as to his existence, and God asked you to give up your way of life, put away sin and follow him, and to worship him, would you then do it?

          • sangrita

            It seems to me you are claiming moral superiority because you are a Christian. That doesn’t work for obvious reasons – I take no interest in porn and find it sleazy, and feel just as bad about you do for engaging in gossip or lying but possibly for more honest reasons, because I’m not concerned with offending some god or other, but because it’s a rotten thing to do to the people involved.

            What you propose is preposterous, because a God who appeared before me wouldn’t be so insecure as to demand that I worship him.

          • George

            Those who claim to be without sin are those who think themselves self righteous. And that’s the very problem the bible teaches, all people are sinners and in need of redemption. The fact you didn’t answer my question shows, that its not that you don’t believe that God exists, but that you don’t want to turn away from your sins (pride, coveting, Jesus said if you lust in your heart with the opposite sex you have committed adultery, if you hate your fellow man, you’ve committed murder in your heart etc, that’s why we are all guilty) but you don’t want God in your life.
            The bible teaches that we are born rebels against God, that we hate him and want to live our own way. You have just revealed, its not that you don’t believe he exists. You don’t want his offer of mercy….

          • sangrita

            Sin is a religious construct. It doesn’t exist outside of religion. You say sin, I say being human. We’re human and we make mistakes. We feel bad when we do bad things, regardless of religion. I have not committed murder, adultery, etc., no matter how you slice it, and the law would agree with me.

          • George

            so, when someone steals from you, your happy to write it off as a human mistake? or, if someone rapes and kills one of your loved ones, that is a human mistake? an error of judgement?
            The very fact we have laws, that when someone breaks the law such as stealing, murder etc, its recognized as a serious crime. A little more than a mistake. That’s why Jesus said the road to hell is very wide and many travel down it. We’ve all sinned against our creator and God who is also our moral law giver, and people are happy to stay in their rebellion against God.
            But the difference is, those who admit to this and trust in Christ, will be forgiven and not come under Gods judgement upon death.

          • sangrita

            Yes. Precisely. When someone steals from me, it’s a human mistake. Ditto if they rape or murder one of my loved ones, and they pay the price for that and go to jail. Notice that the sentencing judge doesn’t sent them to jail for sinning, but killing.
            I’m sure the person who did the killing didn’t consider that it was rebellion against God. In fact, I’m sure God didn’t cross their mind at all.

          • George

            if stealing is a human mistake, why is it punishable by law? God created us, he is a moral God, and he has placed a moral law within every human being, that’s why we all know instinctively its wrong to steal, kill, lie, cheat etc. But that doesn’t mean we always abide by this moral conscience within us, When we do these things, we choose to sin, we are not only hurting people, but we are sinning against them, and even more so to God, for scripture says we are all made in Gods image. To break these laws of God is to be disobedient to God, it is to sin against him.

          • sangrita

            Stealing is against the law because it’s clearly, demonstrably wrong. I don’t necessarily disagree that we know instinctively that it’s wrong to steal, kill, lie, cheat, etc., but I disagree with you that God has instilled that knowledge in us. We know it by simple empathy and the golden rule. Once again you appear to be ascribing God to our moral consciences and that’s incorrect, if only evidenced by the many atheists in this world who behave in exactly the same way.

          • George

            how did we attain this moral conscience? if we are nothing more than evolved apes from the animal kingdom, why do we oppose rape? in the animal world, its about spreading your seed. we should applaud such actions then. why do we oppose murder? in evolution, remember, its what they term red in tooth and claw, its survival of the fittest, so, if I murder someone at my work so I can get his job, isn’t that the same then? of course not. We have courts of law, we have legislation, we have punishments for breaking crimes etc. all attributes we have received from our God, hence, being made ‘in his image’

          • sangrita

            We oppose rape and murder because we are human beings who possess a conscience and can feel empathy. If you’re suggesting the only way to live a good and moral life is through Jesus you’re sorely mistaken. Do you see atheists raping people in the street wantonly left and right? Of course you don’t. God isn’t necessary for us to know what is acceptable moral behavior.

          • George

            you miss my point, my point is that we are all created by God with a moral conscience (doesn’t mean everyone obeys it). Of course many who are atheists live law abiding lives (though they are not sinless)
            The whole argument is, we are different than animals, we are above the animal species, point being, we are created by God.

          • sangrita

            If they consider themselves to be without sin, it merely means they have rejected the religion that teaches that. It doesn’t mean they are without remorse. We are simply defining things differently. You need to frame things within the context of a God and I do not. It is arrogant of you to suggest that pride, coveting, lust, etc. are my specific “sins” when you do not know me. I know that I’m not a perfect person, and no one is, but it’s simple human failing, I don’t see it as sin. And it isn’t that I don’t want God in my life, but don’t believe he’s there at all.

          • George

            You don’t believe God exists because you have been brainwashed to believe that from an erroneous science. But also, we people easily accept these lies because the bible teaches “no one seeks God, all have turned away” (romans 3)
            As for coveting, pride, lust etc being sin is not my suggestion, its what God clearly says in scripture is sin. Im just the messenger. A criminal may break a law and not see it as a law to be broken, but the judge will see it otherwise. Same with sin, you may not see these things as sin, but our creator clearly tells us these are sins, and that’s why Christ was sent to die on the cross, to pay the penalty for these. Forgiveness only becomes effectual when one acknowledges he/she has broken Gods commands and turns in faith to Christ.

          • Bob Johnson

            “been brainwashed to believe that from an erroneous science”

            Actually most people who reject God do so because of a study of theodicy and not because of science.

          • George

            “Science, fundamentally, is a game. It is a game with one overriding and fundamental rule. Rule No.1: let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behaviour of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural” (Chemical evolutionist Richard Dickson)
            That’s the sort of science that has brainwashed many a persons into believing we are nothing more than meat that has arisen from protoplasmic sludge and that we have no more significance than a cockroach. At the same time, falling into satans trap (Jesus refers to him as the father of all lies) causing men to reject Gods merciful offer of grace and thus being damned for all eternity.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            That rule makes perfect sense to me. When you start “invoking the supernatural” it’s just not science any more. The definition of science: “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.” Anything supernatural would be by definition beyond the “physical and natural world.”

          • George

            re the quote I gave, of course it makes sense to you. your biased just like all evolutionary scientists are. that’s not true science. but these men of science would disagree-

            “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind” Albert Einstein

            “Science is the glimpse of Gods purpose in nature. The very existence of the amazing world of the atom and radiation points to a purposeful creation, to the idea that there is a God and an intelligent purpose back of everything…an orderly universe testifies to the greatest statement ever uttered: “In the beginning God” Arthur H. Compton (winner of the Nobel prize in physics)

            “the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science” (Werner vonBraun, the father of space science)

          • TheKingOfRhye

            That’s not true science? Okay, then what’s the definitions of science you’re using then? I’m not trying to disrespect anyone’s belief; I’m just of the opinion that science and religion are separate things. “Non-overlapping magesteria” if you will. (A phrase coined by a guy you quoted a while back, Stephen Gould)

            As for Einstein, he had complex views on religion. He variously described himself as an agnostic or a pantheist.

          • George

            well, science started with creationists, these were men who appreciated design all around us. Einstein may not have been a Christian, but he was smart enough to see design in the world around us.

            “The deeper one penetrates into natures secrets, the greater becomes ones respect for God” Albert Einstein

            “I want to know how God created this world” Albert Einstein

            “There is a being who made all things, who holds all things in his power, and is therefore to be feared” Sir Isaac Newton

            “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being” Sir Isaac Newton

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Science started with creationists? I’m not too sure about that. Can you tell me where and when exactly ‘science started’ anyway? Can anyone? Probably, it started in a lot of different areas, around the same time, I suspect. I still want to know, what’s your definition of science? What definition of science is it that includes the supernatural?

          • George

            heres a list of just a few
            DISCIPLINESCIENTIST ANTISEPTIC SURGERYJOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912) BACTERIOLOGYLOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895) CALCULUSISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727) CELESTIAL MECHANICSJOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630) CHEMISTRYROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691) COMPARATIVE ANATOMYGEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832) COMPUTER SCIENCECHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871) DIMENSIONAL ANALYSISLORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919) DYNAMICSISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727) ELECTRONICSJOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945) ELECTRODYNAMICSJAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879) ELECTRO-MAGNETICSMICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867) ENERGETICSLORD KELVIN (1824-1907) ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTSHENRI FABRE (1823-1915) FIELD THEORYMICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867) FLUID MECHANICSGEORGE STOKES (1819-1903) GALACTIC ASTRONOMYWILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822) GAS DYNAMICSROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691) GENETICSGREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884) GLACIAL GEOLOGYLOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873) GYNECOLOGYJAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870) HYDRAULICSLEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519) HYDROGRAPHYMATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873) HYDROSTATICSBLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662) ICHTHYOLOGYLOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873) ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRYWILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916) MODEL ANALYSISLORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919) NATURAL HISTORYJOHN RAY (1627-1705) NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRYBERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866) OCEANOGRAPHYMATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873) OPTICAL MINERALOGYDAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868) PALEONTOLOGYJOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728) PATHOLOGYRUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902) PHYSICAL ASTRONOMYJOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630) REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICSJAMES JOULE (1818-1889) STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICSJAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879) STRATIGRAPHYNICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686) SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGYCAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778) THERMODYNAMICSLORD KELVIN (1824-1907) THERMOKINETICSHUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829) VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGYGEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)

          • sangrita

            I didn’t say that I don’t believe God exists, I don’t believe the God of the Bible or any other holy book exists because I find the idea to be too unbelievable to take seriously. But why are you saying “erroneous” science? We can always rely on science, it seeks the answers and has the tests in place for us to know we can rely on it, unlike faith.
            God can take all sorts of behaviors and call them “sin” – all I’m concerned with is, does it hurt other people unnecessarily? If so, then we should avoid it. Not because it’s “sin” but because nothing good comes from it.

          • George

            you do know science once thought the earth was flat. science has benefited us in many ways, ie medicine, understanding our planet better etc but theres also what they call historical science, and its here where they make many conjectures, and many times they have been wrong. Science is self correcting, you know that, and since God cannot be tested by science, it doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist.

            “If you thought that science was certain-well, that is just an error on your part” (American physicist Richard Phillips Feynman)

            “It ought not to be overlooked that there are more disagreements and apparent contradictions within science itself than there are between science and religion” (Cambridge biochemist Malcolm Dixon)

            “I have to admit from the outset that science cannot disprove the existence of God” Atheist Peter Atkins

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I agree completely with that last quote. It can’t PROVE it, either, though.

          • http://www.notriddle.com/ Michael Howell

            Then why did God create Satan?

          • George

            because it was all part of Gods plan and he ordained it, just like God knew Adam and eve would eat of the tree of knowledge. It doesn’t mean God is the author of evil, but he allows it to test us, it reveals his holiness, goodness and mercy, and it glorifies good. But, I realize that you wont understand that, and wont accept it, because you will judge it according to your limited human understanding (as is the case for all of us)and scripture teaches Gods ways are not our ways, and his understanding and wisdom is much higher than ours….

          • http://www.notriddle.com/ Michael Howell

            “It doesn’t mean God is the author of evil, but he allows it to test us, it reveals his holiness, goodness and mercy, and it glorifies good.”

            Then where did it come from?

            “Gods ways are not our ways, and his understanding and wisdom is much higher than ours….”

            You said it made it clear, and then turn around and say it will never make sense…

          • George

            To be honest, no amount of evidence or proof will convince people like yourself who have an axe to grind. The gospel is for those who see their need of forgiveness and redemption. Its not for the proud or self righteous. God opposes the proud, but he has mercy on the humble. Like Jesus said, “who ever has ears will listen, who ever has eyes will see”

          • Bob Johnson

            I think this quote mining is akin to the deathbed conversion myths. Most people soon detect the distorted quote mining, however, the person taking these quotes out of context truly wants to believe that these experts found a flaw it their reasoning.

            And clearly looking at the entirety of the passages quoted or better yet the entirety of either Gould or Shapiro’s work tells a much different narrative,

          • OhNoodlyOne

            To to talk origins. Or look at the Smithsonian website. It’s all there.

          • George

            what? they’ve got mannequins that are made to look like cavemen and Neanderthals and that’s proof? sketchy fossils that are open to many interpretations? remember Piltdown man? javaman? Neanderthal man? they were either hoaxes or zealous mistakes….

          • https://www.facebook.com/app_scoped_user_id/1343095871/ Debora A. Carver Ellsworth

            Go look George. If you can’t see what’s right in front of you, then the indoctrination has won. I feel bad for you.

          • George

            yeah right, indoctrination, the onus has always been on ‘evolutionists’ to prove that highly complex organisms arose from nothing and self assembled. Not to mention our very existence is powerful evidence of a designer Now, with your beliefs, that’s real indoctrination.

            “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has” (Malcolm Muggeridge, british journalist & philosopher)

          • https://www.facebook.com/app_scoped_user_id/1343095871/ Debora A. Carver Ellsworth

            Why do religious people say that evolutionists think that life came from “nothing”? I’ve never said that, and no scientist ever said that either. What do you think “nothing” is? Why do I care what Malcolm Muggeridge said? Oh yeah, I don’t.

          • https://www.facebook.com/app_scoped_user_id/1343095871/ Debora A. Carver Ellsworth

            Oh yeah, and that’s exactly what they think their god did, made life from nothing.

          • George

            well, where did life come from then? that’s your very big problem. Your bias and predisposition that God doesn’t exist has left you guys with big problems. You guys really, are implying that nothing made everything. But the bigger insult to intelligence is then you go and say “why do religious people say that we say we came from nothing?” Is it maybe because that’s exactly what your saying? explain to me then how we came into existence? I want to know.

            “In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views” Albert Einstein

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You’re creating a false dilemma there. There are other choices besides “God created everything” or “nothing created everything” (which is something I’ve never heard anyone claim anyway….a strawman argument really)

            Really, there’s two separate questions there….how exactly life started (scientists haven’t recreated that, but I hear they’re getting closer) and who or what, if anything, caused it all (beyond the scope of science, and a question I and many others are happy to consider unanswerable)

          • George

            ok, what are the other choices then? im genuinely interested. everyone should have a say.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            For one, like I said, considering the question of “who or what caused it all” unanswered or unanswerable. I guess you could call that an agnostic viewpoint. I consider myself an ‘agnostic atheist’….I don’t claim to know for sure if there is a god or not, but I see no reason to believe in any particular conception of one.

          • https://www.facebook.com/app_scoped_user_id/1343095871/ Debora A. Carver Ellsworth

            I can’t post the link on this website, and since you refuse to look at any science on your own, I’ll post a little bit here. You’ll be missing the diagrams, which would make it more understandable to you, and you really should go to the website. It’s Evolution dot Berkeley dot edu
            How did life originate?

            Living things (even ancient organisms like bacteria) are enormously complex. However, all this complexity did not leap fully-formed from the primordial soup. Instead life almost certainly originated in a series of small steps, each building upon the complexity that evolved previously:

            Simple organic molecules were formed.
            Simple organic molecules, similar to the nucleotide shown below, are the building blocks of life and must have been involved in its origin. Experiments suggest that organic molecules could have been synthesized in the atmosphere of early Earth and rained down into the oceans. RNA and DNA molecules — the genetic material for all life — are just long chains of simple nucleotides.

          • https://www.facebook.com/app_scoped_user_id/1343095871/ Debora A. Carver Ellsworth

            Replicating molecules evolved and began to undergo natural selection.
            All living things reproduce, copying their genetic material and passing it on to their offspring. Thus, the ability to copy the molecules that encode genetic information is a key step in the origin of life — without it, life could not exist. This ability probably first evolved in the form of an RNA self-replicator — an RNA molecule that could copy itself.

          • https://www.facebook.com/app_scoped_user_id/1343095871/ Debora A. Carver Ellsworth

            There’s a lot more, but you’ll have to look at it yourself.

          • George

            where did the organic molecules come from? explain how we got the oceans? where did nucleotides come from? the earth? you haven’t explained anything. Saying that life took a series of small steps explains nothing. rather –

            “Science is the glimpse of Gods purpose in nature. The very existence of the amazing world of the atom and radiation points to a purposeful creation, to the idea that there is a God and an intelligent purpose back of everything…an orderly universe testifies to the greatest statement ever uttered: “In the beginning God” Arthur H. Compton (winner of the Nobel prize in physics)
            also, even the simple cell in its complexity shows that its an irreducible mechanism, how could it been built step by step if it needs all its parts working co equally at the same time to function? otherwise, it would cease to exist.

          • https://www.facebook.com/app_scoped_user_id/1343095871/ Debora A. Carver Ellsworth

            I’m not going to teach you science George. I’ve given you websites that you can learn from. You have to want to better yourself.

          • George

            why cant you defend your position of faith yourself? even Darwin marvelled at design in the human eye

            “To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree” Charles Darwin (origin of the species)

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’m guessing you’re getting those quotes from AiG or something like that, right? Wherever it is, you should really check to see what the whole quote actually says, because that’s another ‘quote mine’.

            First of all, keep in mind he said “SEEMS absurd”, and read the rest of what he said:

            “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable
            contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for
            admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of
            Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural
            selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
            When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned
            round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but
            the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei [“the voice of the people = the
            voice of God “], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in
            science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple
            and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist,
            each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if
            further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is
            likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful
            to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty
            of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural
            selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”

          • George

            I like using fact behind my arguments, not conjectures and the atheists favourite chant words “evolution is fact!” without anything to back it…..

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Too bad you don’t like actually responding to the things I actually say.

            Do you really not see how you’re doing the same sort of thing Christians so often accuse (sometimes with some merit!) non-believers of doing, taking Biblical quotes out of context?

          • George

            which quotes are out of context?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Basically every quote you’ve quoted so far.

          • George

            yeah right, just because you don’t like the blunt truth of them. (its the old, ‘I cant handle the truth, so I will cast doubt on the source’ trick)

            To be honest, no amount of evidence or proof will convince people like yourself who have an axe to grind. The gospel is for those who see their need of forgiveness and redemption. Its not for the proud or self righteous. God opposes the proud, but he has mercy on the humble. Like Jesus said, “who ever has ears will listen, who ever has eyes will see”

            Read this verse, it explains those who oppose the gospel and refuse to come to God in repentance- “They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts.” ephesians 4:18

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’m not even talking about the Bible here; I’m just using that as an example of how people take quotes out of context, which is what you have been doing over and over again.

            I’m no Bible expert, I’ll admit, but wouldn’t leaving out an important part of the truth be considered “bearing false witness”? At least it is in a court of law, that’s why they put that part about telling the whole truth in the oath.

          • George

            Read this, this so interesting as well –

            When ornithologist Alan Feduccia, an evolutionary biologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill was interviewed by a reporter of Discover magazine, he was asked about the Archaeoraptor fraud, Feduccia said: “Archaeoraptor is just the tip of the iceberg. There are scores of fake fossils out there, and they have cast a dark shadow over the whole field. When you go to these fossil shows, its difficult to tell which ones are faked and which ones are not. I have heard there is
            a fake-fossil factory in northeast China, in Liaoning Province, near the
            deposits where many of these recent alleged feathered dinosaurs were found.”
            The reporter then asked what would motivate such fraud, Feduccia replied “Money. The chinese fossil trade has become a big business, these fossil forgeries have been sold on the black market for years now, for huge sums of money. Anyone who can produce a good fake stands to profit” (Kathy A.Svitil,”Plucking apart the Dino-Birds,” Discover February 2003)

          • OhNoodlyOne

            LOL we’ve learned quite a bit since Darwin George. Well, some of us have.

          • George

            correct, that many are refuting darwins theory. please read on and let me know if you read it, otherwise, don’t bother responding.

            After spokepersons for the Public Broadcasting System’s seven part television series ‘Evolution’ asserted that “all known scientific evidence supports Darwinian evolution as does virtually every reputable scientist in the world” One hundred scientists,ranging from biologists, chemists, physicists, organic chemists, etc with doctorates from Yale, Princeton, Rutgers, Berkeley etc which also included professors from Yale
            Graduate School, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the like published a two page advertisement in a national magazine under the banner:”A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism”

            They stated “ We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life” they said. “Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged”

            These included scientists like Nobel nominee Henry F. Schaefer, James Tour of Rice University’s Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology and Fred Figworth, Professor of cellular and molecular physiology at Yale Graduate School. (“ A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism” two
            page advertisement in The Weekly Standard October 1,2001)

          • OhNoodlyOne

            I’ll respond whenever I want George, you can’t tell me when I can or can’t. Keep that in mind.

          • OhNoodlyOne

            Scientists have learned a great deal since Darwin proposed his theory of evolution. I’ll go look up the newest numbers of scientists that don’t understand evolution. BRB.

          • OhNoodlyOne

            Only a minority of Americans fully accept evolution through natural selection. Roughly six-in-ten U.S. adults (62%) say humans have evolved over time, according to data from Pew Research Center’s recently released Religious Landscape Study. But only a little more than half of them (33% of all Americans) express the belief that humans and other living things evolved solely due to natural processes. A quarter of U.S. adults (25%) say evolution was guided by a supreme being. The same survey found that 34% of Americans reject evolution entirely, saying humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.

          • OhNoodlyOne

            While 98% of scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science say they believe humans evolved over time, only two-thirds (66%) of Americans overall perceive that scientists generally agree about evolution, according to 2014 data from a recent Pew Research Center survey on science and society. Those in the general public who reject evolution are divided on whether there is a scientific consensus on the topic, with 47% saying scientists agree on evolution and 46% saying they do not.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice” – Neil Peart, Rush, “Freewill”

          • George

            so, no answer in other words. Our existence, our fined tuned world, the anthropic principles all around us is still powerful evidence of a designer/creator. Its simple really, where you see designed things like paintings, computers, buildings etc there was always a designer/builder behind it.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “no answer in other words”

            Yeah, that’s what I’ve been trying to say. You (and so many other people!) keep coming up with this idea that all atheists think “nothing created everything” or however you want to put it, but that’s just not true.

            You’re going with the “fine-tuned universe” argument, I see….I’m not convinced by that at all. It’s faulty reasoning, if you ask me. Of course the universe seems “fine-tuned”. If conditions weren’t just right for us, we wouldn’t be here in the first place to argue about if it’s “tuned” or not. And, of course, it’s only a very, very, infinitesimally small, tiny little fraction of the universe that has the right conditions for us to be in.

            And an interesting thought that I just read about….there’s also the speculation that it’s not just a universe, but a “multiverse”, or in other words, there’s a number of alternate or parallel universes. If that’s the case, that would neatly explain the “fine-tuning” thing. Other universes would have different tunings, so to speak, perhaps at random, and only a universe with the right one would support life.

            You seem to like quoting, so here’s a few I found….

            “If the universe was designed for life, it must be said that it is a
            shockingly inefficient design. There are vast reaches of the universe in which life as we know it is clearly impossible: gravitational forces would be crushing, or radiation levels are too high for complex molecules to exist, or temperatures would make the formation of stable chemical bonds impossible… Fine-tuned for life? It would make more sense to ask why God designed a universe so inhospitable to life.” – physicist Robert L Park

            “imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an
            interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself
            in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly
            well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this World was meant to have him in it, was built to have him init; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.” – Douglas Adams

          • George

            thing is, your not sure how we came into being, you concede that there are just too many conditions that need to be razor perfect for life on earth, so, why don’t you consider intelligent design as another possible reason?
            its also a fair stretch for people like park to move the issue from our world and galaxy to why other parts of the universe are inhospitable! that’s because no one lives there! what matters is us and how and why we are here. Park really sounds like a spoilt child who has everything and goes on to sook, ‘I don’t have this, I don’t have that’ not realizing he has everything.
            That does not explain the miracle of existence, life, and our planet.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “you concede that there are just too many conditions that need to be razor perfect for life on earth”

            I feel like you missed my points on that. 1. The Earth is just a ridiculously small part of the universe. 2. If conditions weren’t right, we wouldn’t be here to wonder what the conditions being right means.

            “why don’t you consider intelligent design as another possible reason?”

            I have. I just haven’t found enough evidence for that, and I see too many things that seem to point against it, for me to believe in it.

            “its also a fair stretch for people like park to move the issue from our world and galaxy to why other parts of the universe are inhospitable!”

            Well, okay, let’s consider our galaxy, then. Over 100,000 light-years in diameter, over 100 million stars. We’re still just a tiny part of that. It almost gets to the point where the numbers one would use to describe it are just too big for people to intuitively grasp. And even if we do eventually find intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy, it wouldn’t change the fact that large parts of it are completely inhospitable to life. (by the way, I really hope I am still around if/when that happens…would be like the biggest news story of all time, for one thing)

          • George

            “I feel like you missed my points on that. 1. The Earth is just a ridiculously small part of the universe. 2. If conditions weren’t right, we wouldn’t be here to wonder what the conditions being right means.”
            no offence, you sound like you don’t appreciate the scope, the magnificence of what is around us. Again, rather than marvel at the world around us, people like to divert the argument to’the earth is a tiny part of the universe’ as if to say it means nothing. You obviously wouldn’t appreciate a good painting or art design if it hit you in the face. But that’s why men like newton and einstein appreciated thee world around us, they knew design when they saw it.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You tell me “no offense” but then a few sentences later I OBVIOUSLY wouldn’t know good art if it hit me in face…..okay then, nice. Well, anyway, sorry to disappoint you, but you’re wrong there. I do “marvel at the world around us.” I just feel you don’t have to believe in a god to do that. And acknowledging that we only occupy a tiny corner of the universe doesn’t detract from that, either.

            “Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe there are fairies at the bottom of it too?” – Douglas Adams

          • George

            Difference is, Christs death and resurrection are a historical fact. A belief in fairies doesn’t change peoples hearts from serving sin and themselves to serving others. A belief in fairies does not make a self serving criminal transform into someone who now wants to help the poor and serve in a soup kitchen. It was Christians, who started the first hospitals, schools, abolishment of slavery (William Wilberforce)prison reforms, charities, fair work practices (after industrial revolution)etc. It takes a little more than a belief in fairies to accomplish these things….

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “A belief in fairies doesn’t change peoples hearts from serving sin and
            themselves to serving others. A belief in fairies does not make a self
            serving criminal transform into someone who now wants to help the poor
            and serve in a soup kitchen”

            Why not, if someone sincerely believes in those fairies, and thinks they want them to do such things? Or, as odd as it might seem, someone could do things like that without any belief in fairies or gods. Look at Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett….atheists or agnostics, and some of the richest men AND biggest philanthropists around.

          • George

            that’s not to say non Christians don’t serve in charities and the such, but, nonetheless, the majority of people who serve in soup kitchens, help feed the poor, clothe and the such are either Christian organizations or individuals. But, also, the atheists claim about fairies is null and void anyway, because no stated that the God we serve is a little butterfly being.
            Again, if you bothered to understand some of my arguments, being a Christian is not a blind faith. It is supported by the bible in which historical and archaeological findings have never contradicted anything in scripture, and as a matter of fact, have only supported it, That Jesus Christ was a real person who claimed to be the Son of God, the church itself is both started and supported by history at the time of the death and resurrection of Christ, but also, the testimony of Christians like myself, how God has changed our lives, that I know him, and that Jesus is my Lord and saviour.

          • George

            also, to be able to write off our world as being small and insignificant shows a lack of understanding of the complex systems in place. ill leave it to this gentleman to explain much clearer –

            “Human DNA contains more organized information than the encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random forces”
            (George sim Johnson)

          • sangrita

            It’s impossible to even have a conversation with you when you say evolution isn’t a fact. If you make a statement like that. You are a science denier, plain and simple.

          • George

            Go ahead tear those people apart if you want, it wont change the fact those said people were being honest and just stating the truth about the evolution theory. Re science, I only deny the conjectures science can sometimes make, not their findings based on actual repeated observations and testing. Plus, why should we accept everything science tells us? they have been wrong, many times. –

            “If you thought that science was certain-well, that is just an error on your part” (American physicist Richard Phillips Feynman)
            and
            “It oughtnot to be overlooked that there are more disagreements and apparent contradictions within science itself than there are between science and religion” (Cambridge biochemist Malcolm Dixon)

          • sangrita

            They may have been honest, but were you in quote mining them? TheKingofRhye is correct, and I’ll quote HIS words back to you:

            Gould wasn’t trying to disprove evolution; he just had a different idea
            of how exactly it happened. From a few sentences later in the essay
            that that quote is from: “The modern theory of evolution does not
            require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes
            should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism
            we should reject, not Darwinism.” I notice you, or whoever you got
            that quote from, didn’t include that part.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I’ll bet you like to hear yourself talk. You must be really boring at parties.

          • sangrita

            Thanks for staying on topic. Your ad hominem non sequitur really made your point for you.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Oh wow, someone went to the logical arguments website to use big words. Let me tell you something – your use of those terms is about as accurate as Babel Fish is for translations. You give yourself away every time. 🙂

          • sangrita

            Ad hominem – “boring at parties”
            Non sequitur – we were discussing evolution, not parties.

            Please tell me what I got wrong, chuckles.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re awfully lonely. Perhaps if you’d be nicer (and study science) more people would be willing to talk to you.

          • sangrita

            Another diversionary tactic ad hominem. Wow, just look at all the fail.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So do you have any science to discuss? Didn’t think so. 🙂

          • sangrita

            Sure, evolution, but you don’t want to discuss it, you want to sneer at it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You haven’t pulled up any scientific sources. I have. Where are your sources?

          • sangrita

            I’ll give you a big scientific source. The evolution section of your public library. Should only be a few hundred books or so.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            There are thousands of fiction books at the library. Your point? 🙂

          • sangrita

            The point is you need to find your library’s nonfiction section.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I’ve written some of those books in the library. There are plenty of Young Earth Creationist books in the library – Newton, Faraday, Damadian, etc.

          • sangrita

            You seem to be having trouble with what is fiction and what is non-fiction. You need to stop looking for books about evolution in the fiction section. It’s in the 576 section.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Everything I’ve cited has been from scientific journals. 🙂

          • George

            lets not divert the argument. The plain simple fact is, there is no evidence that evolution took place. The only evolution that took place is variation within the species, not one kind evolving into another kind.

            “I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology…I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science” (Soren Lovtrup embryologist; Darwinism:the refutation of a myth)
            (is this out of context as well?)

          • sangrita

            Well, scientists observe evolution and work with it, so I’m going to say that I disagree with your statement that there’s no evidence that it took place.
            You once again provide a quote referring to Darwinism but not necessarily evolution, don’t you see the HUGE problem in doing so?

          • George

            Please bear with me a little more, read this and see this individual here was honest enough to explain Darwinian scientists true motive –

            “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs…in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment….to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our ‘a priori’ adherence to material causes tocreate an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce
            material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door” (Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin)

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Hey, another quote-mine job, how about that……

            Just after that quote stops: ” The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.”

          • George

            I just let the experts explain to you –
            “the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science” (Werner von Braun, the father of space science)

          • OhNoodlyOne

            Most atheists are smarter than theists. They use critical thinking and dismiss magic.

          • George

            again, my smart friend, you forget-

            “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind” Albert Einstein

            “an increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists…argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all…many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials” (Michael Ruse, Darwins Theory:an exercise in science”)

          • OhNoodlyOne

            I’m smart enough, but I’m not your friend. Keep getting your scientific knowledge from christian websites and you won’t learn anything.

          • OhNoodlyOne

            In the middle of an on-line debate a couple of days ago, I made the factual observation that there were zero scientific papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals that supported intelligent design. As a response by a Creationist, I was sent the following “evidence” that is apparently proof that evolution has now been discredited …

            The scientific magazine Discover put the situation this way: “Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism.”

            Francis Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the Giraffe, stated: “For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.

            After an important conference of some 150 specialists in evolution held in Chicago, Illinois, a report concluded: “[Evolution] is undergoing its broadest and deepest revolution in nearly 50 years. . . . Exactly how evolution happened is now a matter of great controversy among biologists. . . . No clear resolution of the controversies was in sight.

            Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: “The doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of evolutionary biology’s last twenty years has inflamed passions.” He spoke of the “lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,” and added, “things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary] theme as there are individual biologists.

            And Britain’s New Scientist observed that “an increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.

            Anybody who is not familiar with the topic would read the above and potentially buy into the thought that perhaps there are serious concerns about evolution. However, its a con job. Let me take you for a quick tour through each of the above in more detail so that you can see what I’m on about.

            First we have the apparent quote from Discover that appears to say that reputable scientists no longer accept Evolution. Were these words actually published in Discover magazine? yes they were, and they do indeed appear to be quite damming. But check back to the original and you find they have been pulled out of context to completely twist their meaning. Here is the complete text with just the bits they chose underlined so that you can see what was left out

            “Charles Darwin’s brilliant theory of evolution, published in 1859, had a stunning impact on scientific and religious thought and forever changed man’s perception of himself. Now that hallowed theory is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism…. Most of the debate will center on one key question: Does the three-billion-year-old process of evolution creep at a steady pace, or is it marked by long periods of inactivity punctuated by short bursts of rapid change? Is Evolution a tortoise or a hare? Darwin’s widely accepted view — that evolution proceeds steadily, at a crawl — favors the tortoise. But two paleontologists, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, are putting their bets on the hare.” – James Gorman, “The Tortoise or the Hare?”, Discover, October 1980, p. 88

            This is not a simple mistake, these creationist gobshits have conducted deliberate fraud and deceit by pulling a few words out of context, it totally changes what was really written. Oh, and take note of the date for this quote, its over 30 years old. Is the rest any better? Lets see.

            Next up we have a quote by Francis Hitching from his book. The claim is made that he is an evolutionist and thus implies that he has some scientific credentials and used to believe in Evolution but no longer does, but thats an outright lie. Hitching is basically a sensational TV script writer and has no scientific credentials. In The Neck of the Giraffe he claimed to be a member of the Royal Archaeological Institute, but an inquiry to that institute said he was not. He implied in the “Acknowledgements” of The Neck of the Giraffe that paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould had helped in the writing of the book, but upon inquiry Gould said he did not know him and had no information about him. Hitching also implied that his book had been endorsed by Richard Dawkins, but upon inquiry Dawkins stated: “I know nothing at all about Francis Hitching. If you are uncovering the fact that he is a charlatan, good for you. His book, The Neck of the Giraffe, is one of the silliest and most ignorant I have read for years.“. Still think he might be a credible authority? Well think again, because if you dig even deeper you soon discover that Hitching is a complete kook. He believes in the paranormal and has written on Mayan pyramid energy. The reference work Contemporary Authors, Vol. 103, page 208, lists him as a member of the Society for Psychical Research, the British Society of Dowsers and of the American Society of Dowsers. His writings include: Earth Magic, Dowsing: The Psi Connection. This man is not a credible source for any statements on evolution.

            OK, so what’s next? Well, we apparently have a report of some recent conference of 150 specialists who are in controversy over evolution, sounds damming, ah but wait, lets inject a few facts and context here. Its not new, this conference took place over 30 years ago and the quote comes from a New Your Times article published on November 4, 1980. (Once again its very old and not at all new) … and once again they left bits out to twist the meaning, look what happens when I put the missing first sentence back in:

            Biology’s understanding of how evolution works, which has long postulated a gradual process of Darwinian natural selection acting on genetic mutations, is undergoing its broadest and deepest revolution in nearly 50 years

            In other words, it was deliberately massaged to suggest weakness in the fact of evolution rather than what it was actually talking about, the perceived mechanism.

            Now, moving on we get to the Niles Eldredge quote. Its also ancient history and is a carefully selected set of words lifted out of the original context of a 1982 article. Is he truly expressing doubt about evolution? Of course not, the career and writings of Niles Eldredge between 1982 and now prove quite the opposite, he has published more than 160 scientific articles, books, and reviews, and his main professional passion is evolution.

            So finally, we get to an apparently anonymous quote from “New Scientist”. Well, thats actually a quote mined out of an article written in New Scientist by Michael Ruse on 25th June 1981 (If curious to see the actual article, click here) Humm, yes its been three decades since this claim was made, so most of those alleged doubting scientists would be dead by now. And yes its “that” Michael Ruse, the philosopher who has been labeled “clueless” by some rather prominent evolutionary biologists (Click here to see that writeup, oh and note thats from last year … I can come up with recent references, not stuff that is over three decades old, and its by a real professor at a real university who is actually a biologist), so while the Ruse quote might have been quote mined, even the original (which does support evolution) can be taken with a lrage grain of salt due to the lack of credibility that Ruse has in this domain.

            There is no debate to be had here. Instead, what we find is deliberate fraud, deceit and zero integrity. I believe the correct term is “Liers for Jesus”. There are of course many who honestly believe in Creationism because they have been presented with a lot of apparent proof that discredits scientific fact. Tragically, they are the victims, and have been deceived by this con job. But those who orchestrated this, and have repeatedly had their creationist propaganda debunked, yet still persist in their devotion to distorting the truth, truly are clueless gobshites.

            So when faced with the grossly dishonest Creationist claims for which there is not one single jot of evidence, … be extremely skeptical … they will distort the truth, spout lies, and attempt to deceive you.

          • George

            Your long reply hasnt even answered why evolution is fact. again, you cant answer the simple questions that even a child would ask. Why are there still apes around? why havent they evolved? why are we not in a state of evolution? Where are the millions of transitional fossils? (not the ones you claim) why is the missing link is still missing. Why were piltdown man, java man hoaxes? why was neanderthal man now discovered to be only human?

          • OhNoodlyOne

            Wow George, you want me to explain evolution to you as I would a child? There are apes still around because we have an ancestor in common. Who says they haven’t evolved? We are all in a continuous state of evolution. There are millions of transitional fossils in museums. Go look. Try talk origins. Start there and get back to me.

          • OhNoodlyOne

            This is from skeptical science dot com. I can’t post the link on here of course but you can look it up.

          • axelbeingcivil

            You can’t really rule it in without evidence either. I mean, you can’t rule out that it was the Elder God Nyarlathotep reaching into the mind of mortals, or that a passing unicorn’s magical breath induced the madness, or that elves hurling shot as the Unseelie Court stalked the night did this.

            There are infinite potential explanations, which we cannot – in theory – rule out. In practice, we require a minimum threshold of evidence to say they’re in any way likely.

          • B1jetmech

            There are infinite potential explanations

            There are infinite guesses in your case but wouldn’t settle on demon possession because that would give credibility to Christianity.

            However, since you don’t believe it could be demon possession because you think “science” should splain’ away any evidences…how would use use science to rule out demon possession?

          • axelbeingcivil

            Firstly, demonic possession isn’t a belief unique to Christianity. Countless religions believe in malicious supernatural beings influencing or controlling humans for their own cruel ends.

            Second, whether it lends credibility to Christianity or not is irrelevant to me; the evidence leads where it leads, I shall follow.

            Third, there are a theoretically infinite number of explanations for any and all phenomena. Determining which is the most likely requires an examination of evidence. Once sets of likely explanations are determined, then you start narrowing them down, either by finding evidence that makes some more likely and or that rules out others.

            Fourth, if there were evidence in favour of demonic possession, I’d have to look for counter-indicative signs. For that, though, we’d need some evidence that distinguishes demonic possession from entirely mundane psychosis. Objects levitating? Sulfurous smoke? Impossible knowledge?

            If we don’t have that, why assume it’s anything beyond mundane psychosis?

          • B1jetmech

            demonic possession isn’t a belief unique to Christianity.

            That is not the point. You may attempt to discredit Christianity by diluting it with other so called religions over this subject. Believers are dealing this on a daily occurrence all around the world.

            Second, whether it lends credibility to Christianity or not is irrelevant to me

            Honestly, I think your mind is made up regardless of any “scientific” outcome or lack there of. However, this is beyond scientific study.

            Third, there are a theoretically infinite number of explanations for any and all phenomena.

            Remember, there are countless Christians around the world dealing with this very issue. You may start with them if your pride isn’t too big. I will warn you though. Being at an exorcism isn’t a pretty site and not a pleasant experience. Then those who perform these exorcisms are harassed spiritually afterwards and if not them..then their families. I know, because I been through it a little.

            Fourth, if there were evidence in favour of demonic possession

            It’s not a cut n’ dry … A to B, or dot to dot method of understanding and discovery.

            Demons are disembodied spirits that require a host to take possession. Without a host, they are powerless, but they don’t go away. When they take possession, they can do all sorts of things such as super natural strength, increased knowledge, so who knows but it’s usually beyond human capabilities.

            My advice to you after all, is to stay away. Because you and others like minded don’t know what you would be getting exposed to. Because, you don’t believe in God and His son Christ, you are not super naturally protected and very vulnerable.

            Say what you want to say here and disagree all you want and leave it at that…but don’t go chasing something that can destroy you.

          • axelbeingcivil

            Anything and everything that interacts with the physical world is subject to scientific scrutiny. Even if, somehow, for whatever reason, this phenomena exists in some intangible state, we can still monitor it and study it by the effects it leaves on physical reality. If it didn’t interact with physical reality, we couldn’t and wouldn’t know it existed at all.

            I’ve seen videos of exorcisms before and they’re hardly convincing. They’re usually someone making strange noises while someone else shouts Bible verses at them. I’ve not seen anything in any of them that I’d call supernatural. Claims of supernatural strength don’t impress anyone who has, say, ever worked in a home for the developmentally challenged and seen what a human being can do when they’re not limited by the behavioural constraints that limit most people. They don’t impress anyone who has heard of the extreme feats of strength parents will perform from seemingly nowhere to save their children, either.

            Here’s a possibility for you to consider: Mental illnesses are common, natural events, as are addiction and other harmful behaviours. When raised in a culture that guides them to believe in certain phenomena, people with these illnesses will shape their own understanding of them through the lens of the culture they’ve been raised in. In the throes of a psychotic break, they will react to whatever they feel they should react to, and often ascribe the passing of the episode to whatever intervention was used.

            Those who perform exorcisms will experience heightened sensitivity and confirmation bias as they expect to experience harassment by unseen forces. Any negative or even mildly spooky stimulus thereafter will be ascribed to demonic malevolence.

            You’ll probably consider this unreasonable and, hey, maybe you’re right; maybe there really are demons. But so long as this explanation is sufficient, I see no reason to assume otherwise.

          • B1jetmech

            Anything and everything that interacts with the physical world is subject to scientific scrutiny

            If it didn’t interact with physical reality, we couldn’t and wouldn’t know it existed at all

            It’s one thing to claim that, whoever, we are dealing in multi level dimensional forces that go beyond our known 4 dimensions. There are more dimensions in theory but they can only be understood through mathematics.

            On the first easter morning during Christ’s resurrection, He walked through walls in physical form. It is estimated that He was in 10 different dimensions at one time.

            I’ve seen videos of exorcisms before and they’re hardly convincing.

            I agree. Being there is a different experience and I don’t care for the fact someone films it if it even is authentic.

            Claims of supernatural strength don’t impress anyone who has, say, ever worked in a home for the developmentally challenged and seen what a human being can do when they’re not limited by the behavioural constraints that limit most people

            Mentally challenged people are susceptible to possession, however, I believe are at a lower priority of mental state of mind then a regular person.

            Mental illnesses are common, natural events, as are addiction and other harmful behaviours

            I think mental illness is prevalent as claimed because majority of these issues are spiritual related but cannot be detected by conventional means. They can only be deal with through spiritual ways.

            Those who perform exorcisms will experience heightened sensitivity and confirmation bias as they expect to experience harassment by unseen forces.

            Bu you see, these are jut symptoms, the root of problem is the possession itself. In reality, no medicines and psychiatric treatment can remove an “unclean” spirit rom a person.

            It’s prayer an e word of God.

            You’ll probably consider this unreasonable and, hey, maybe you’re right; maybe there really are demons. But so long as this explanation is sufficient, I see no reason to assume otherwise.
            My only issue is treating a spiritual problem with physical means such as medicines and therapy. Other then that it was a great discussion.

          • Amos Moses

            “whether it lends credibility to Christianity or not is irrelevant to me; the evidence leads where it leads, I shall follow.”

            If your worldview excludes God ….. no …. it will not lead you ….. you will refuse to follow ….

          • axelbeingcivil

            So, you have to accept the conclusion without any evidence?

          • Amos Moses

            The only “evidence” you have is what you read in an article in a magazine or book ……….. you have not done any of the real world collection of the evidence to the degree that you and others continually spout as if it is some “authority” …… all you have is what others have “reported” ……………….. yet you do not accept the exact same quality of biblical evidence …………. there is no difference …………

            We all have the EXACT SAME EVIDENCE ………….. you reject part of that evidence ……… because you reject God ……….. and i have said it before and say it again now ……… you have no reliable view of the evidence ………… WHEN YOU REJECT PART OF THE EVIDENCE …… the evidence is not at issue ……….. IT IS YOUR VIEW OF IT …………. and it is in error …

          • axelbeingcivil

            I’m curious: Do you accept all human claims unskeptically?

          • Guest

            I’m curious: is sangrita your only alt here?

          • axelbeingcivil

            I don’t have any alts. Why would I?

          • sangrita

            This is a game he plays all the time.

          • sangrita

            Just saw this now and had a good laugh. It’s a ridiculous guess for one thing and you’d never be able to prove it for another and finally nobody cares. If I got banned from this place I wouldn’t look back.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Is “Guest” who I think it is?

          • sangrita

            I never think twice about stuff like that to be honest. If it’s someone who’s been banned who’s come back using a different name it’s all the same to me. To them, however, they like to think they’re so good at playing detective.

          • Bob Johnson

            I use the Chrome browser – every rebuttal to Guest gets an immediate vote down.

          • Amos Moses

            i have a skepticism of all human claims ……. the bible is not a human claim ……..

          • axelbeingcivil

            It’s a book written by humans. How is it not a human claim?

          • Amos Moses

            “It’s a book written by humans.”

            No ………. but nice try …………. and BTW ……….. all your “science” books WERE written by humans ………. but all of you throw them around like they are scripture …….. and if you are in any way consistent ………… you should throw all them out also ………….. but you believe a lie ……..

          • axelbeingcivil

            With science, all claims are explained and verifiable, with no dogmatic demand that you accept them. I use technology every day that could not operate if those principles were not correct. It’s not accepted “just because”.

            As for the Bible, I’m curious who you think wrote it if not for humans.

          • Amos Moses

            With science …………. it is all eyewitness testimony and your standard applies ….. and yet you are here demanding that it be accepted with an imprimatur of truth ….. and it is not truth ……… technology works because God created things in a predictable way so that we can observe it and then make things ….. but the universe did not “will” itself into existence in an ordered fashion ………. that is a lie ….. books do not write themselves …… and neither did your DNA ………… and neither did the universe …………….

            the bible was written by the hand of man but not the mind of man …. there are things in the bible that the hands that wrote it could not know or collaborate on ….. it is over 60 books by 40 different men over 4000 years and there is no way men could accomplish that in a consistent manner …….. and it is a consistent narrative and all about one person …. a person people of the OT could never have envisioned on their own and never knew ……..

            “science” books change from month to month and year to year ………. “science” has not accomplished in any way, shape, or form of what the bible IS ………….

          • Ax2root

            Unsound mindset agreed with the devil

          • hamfish

            Yes you can, because its not real. Its what people called mental illness back in the days before we had modern psychiatry.

        • Ax2root

          The devil and demons are spirit and do their evil work through humans who allow them access.

          See ISIS

          • sangrita

            ISIS are indoctinated idiots. You don’t need Satan to be one of those.

          • Ax2root

            ISIS agrees with a demonic mindset

          • sangrita

            We see what ISIS does as bad. We also assuming demonic things to be bad. But that doesn’t make them the same.

          • Ax2root

            People either agree with the True Creator God OR the devil.

            There are only two mindsets.

            ” be renewed in the SPIRIT of your mind” bible

            Agree with The Holy Spirit instead of the devil

          • sangrita

            “People either agree with the True Creator God OR the devil.”
            I could not disagree more. I’m reminded of George W. Bush saying “You’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists” when it’s entirely possible you could be for neither one. That’s what your statement makes me think of.
            If there is a “true creator” of course I’d agree with him/it, but since it’s so impossible to know the NATURE of a “true creator” I’ll just live the best life I can. I don’t believe in the devil, so we can toss that out the window too.

          • Ax2root

            Do you believe it is possible to know the truth?

            Do you desire to know the truth?

          • sangrita

            If you are proselytizing, I’m really not interested. Told the Jehovah’s Witnesses at my door the same thing this morning.

          • Ax2root

            I just asked a question. Yes or no?
            Do you desire to know the truth or not?

            That is for you to consider.

            It has nothing to do with me answering it

          • sangrita

            I don’t believe the truth is yours to offer. I live my own truth.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Do you think there’s anyone that woul actually answer “no” to that question?

      • Amos Moses

        MJ always gave me the munchies ….. but not like this ……….. sorry ….. bad joke …. or wrong time ……

    • axelbeingcivil

      And/or mental illness.

    • Guest

      He tested negative in preliminary tests but the flakka test won’t be back for a few weeks. The last guy who did this tested negative for flakka and had a minimal amount of pot in his system.

      • axelbeingcivil

        With the number of designer drugs on the rise, is it a surprise that traditional tests might not detect something?

        • Guest

          I never said there weren’t any drugs involved. In fact, I’ve said it might be a new drug involved. However, drugs don’t rule out demon possession.

          • axelbeingcivil

            Maybe they don’t, but you need evidence to rule it in, too.

          • Guest

            I know who you are – did you get banned under your other insipid handle?

          • sangrita

            You make this charge frequently.

          • Guest

            And I’m always right.

          • sangrita

            Proof?

          • Guest

            Oh my. The alts come out. Here’s a tip for you: If you’re going to try to pretend to be different people, change your tone and syntax.

          • sangrita

            How do you get tone and syntax from a single word? Oh, never mind, I know…you don’t.

          • Guest

            You’re just lonely and looking for someone to talk to you. Bored housewife and all that. Sad.

          • sangrita

            Oh my, a wild swing in the dark, and not surprisingly a total miss.

          • Guest

            Maybe you can knock yourself out next time.

          • sangrita

            Maybe you can be correct next time.

          • Guest

            Maybe you won’t have to keep making alts every time you get banned.

          • sangrita

            Tsk tsk. Another wild swing in the dark. Please tell me who I supposedly am, let’s all enjoy your wrongness.

          • Guest

            Tsk tsk. You’re very boring.

          • sangrita

            Go read your Bible then.

          • Guest

            My you’re a bitter old goat.

          • axelbeingcivil

            I… Don’t have any other handles? Nor have I ever. This is my one and only handle and I’ve had it for years. You can see my posting history, even; it’s all public.

          • sangrita

            It’s a sad tactic used here by far too many people. When you’re losing an argument, bring in the old “oh you’re just so-and-so posting under a sock account” thing, which is a really cheap diversionary tactic.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Naw, it’s the truth. You guys are so transparent. I’ll bet you didn’t even pass high school science. 🙂

          • sangrita

            Naw, we embrace science, we don’t run from it as you do.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            If I run from it, why did I study it? 🙂

          • sangrita

            Well, I don’t think you did, at least not very well.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yeah, I know, I got all my degrees for nothing. 🙂

          • sangrita

            Bob Jones University?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I’ve never attended a religious school. All my education is secular. A lot of non-Christian scientists doubt evolution. It’s the new wave.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Anyway, back on topic, what is your evidence?

    • Amos Moses

      He tried to buy a Whopper at McDonalds and they did not have one ………

      • sangrita

        Whatever THAT means.

    • Ax2root

      demonic sorcery often involves drugs .

      The power in the name of Jesus spoken in faith by a believer is above any demonic power.

      See the biblical account of the sons of Sceva….

      • sangrita

        Got anything more recent, and therefore more realistic?

  • ComeOnPeople!

    Believe it or not there have been many more incidents of this nature since CERN preformed their last tests and the opening of the Tunnel ceremony in Switzerland… not far from CERN. There have been way more reports of people acting like animals, stripping their clothing off and police saying these people have unusual strength when they tried to arrest them the in the past. Many of them texted negatively for drugs.

    • Guest

      There was a big story in the news about the guy who ate the homeless guy’s face. They assumed he was on flakka. Tests later showed the guy had only pot in his system. This latest guy tested negative for all drugs except the flakka test won’t be back for a few weeks yet. Makes you wonder what’s going on.

  • Chuckles McTruck

    There are no demons and there is no god.

    • Amos Moses

      Must be a scientific opinion ….. where is the proof ………..

      • Chuckles McTruck

        The proof is that there has never in the history of humanity been any single shred of evidence for the existence of such entities.

        More to the point: maybe instead of worrying about goblins in your panties or whatever you should focus on worrying about actual human beings. Human beings are real. Drug addiction is real. Those are things we can assess and help out, if we are not too cowardly to look at them squarely.

        • Amos Moses

          Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ……… try again ……….

          • Chuckles McTruck

            The sheer irony of that statement absolutely gobsmacks me.

            You do know that works both ways, right?

          • Amos Moses

            yeah …….. no ……. if radioactive material exists …… but all of it is encased in lead ….. and you cannot detect it or see it …… does not mean it does not exist …… just that you are blind to it ….. and actually ….. you are surrounded by evidence …… and you are blind to it …… because you choose to be blind …………

          • OhNoodlyOne

            except that there’s no reason to believe that a god exists. Maybe in the distant past, when we didn’t understand how the world works. But we’ve learned a lot and none of it points to a god.

          • Amos Moses

            We still do not understand how the world works ……. and that is not what the bible is about ….. and you only demonstrate your ignorance of what it does say ………….

            “But we’ve learned a lot and none of it points to a god.”

            No ………. you refuse to see what the evidence is ……. willful blindness ……

            Ancient societies were able to somehow move megaliths …….. we …. who, as you posit ….. “But we’ve learned a lot ……” to this day have no means, no technology to move them due to there immense weight ……. but it is anachronistic arrogance and chronological snobbery …….. Where we happen to think that we is the smartest generation to ever be since the foundation of the everything and there aint been nobody who has ever been smarter than us ……… guess again …………

          • OhNoodlyOne

            ^this is what happens when you read christian news and think it’s reality.

          • Amos Moses

            …….. this is what happens when you try to swim in the deep end of the gene pool ……. you get your intellectual butt whooped ……….

          • OhNoodlyOne

            I keep my intellect in my head Amos. Maybe that’s your problem, yours is in your butt. And I doubt you know anything about genes or even believe they exist.

          • Amos Moses

            So just insult and ad hominem …….. got it ……

          • OhNoodlyOne

            If we could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people. Take it whatever way you want.

          • Amos Moses

            christianity is not religion ……….. and it is not a position reasoned into …… therefore not a position reasoned out of …….. it is a position of truth …….. and the only place to move is away from truth ……….. and insult is not going to move a person away from it …………. there is reason in it ….. but if you reject truth ….. then you are blind to it …….. as we all were ……. we were all in the same position ….. blind to the truth of what we are ….. but then Christ showed us just how wrong we were ……… and we came to agree with Him ………. and we no longer agree with the world ….. that you are still part of …. but do not have to be ……….

          • OhNoodlyOne

            Christ is imaginary.

          • Amos Moses

            Is that a scientific opinion ………

          • OhNoodlyOne

            No. It’s common sense.

          • Amos Moses

            Yeah ……. no ……….

          • OhNoodlyOne

            Well, of course not to YOU. You appear to lack common sense.

          • Amos Moses

            Yeah ……. no ………..

          • OhNoodlyOne

            You seem conflicted, is reality trying to sneak in?

          • Amos Moses

            Yeah ….. no ……….

          • George

            if evolution were true, and we evolved over millions of years, that means hundreds of millions of humans evolved, that means millions and millions would have died in a transitional state, why is it that we haven’t even found one genuine fossil showing this? should we not find millions of undisputed transitional fossils, not to mention even of the animal kingdom, for such a theory to be true? How do you expect us to believe this with no observational evidence?

          • OhNoodlyOne

            We have found millions of fossils showing this George. Look up Homo habilis, Go to any science museum. Look online. Look up vestigial organs in humans. Look at the leg bones in whales. Look at the Pink Frogmouth.

          • George

            most vestigial organs have been found to be useful, the appendix for instance plays a role in the immune system, the coccyx helps with sitting etc. As for your fossil ‘evidence’… really? c’mon man, whale bones? like I said, where are the millions of irrefutable ones? Why don’t we see anything evolving today? isn’t it continuous? As Stephen Jay Gould clearly states –

            “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches;
            the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils…all
            palaeontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the
            way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt” (Harvard palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould)

          • OhNoodlyOne

            There are millions of irrefutable ones in museums George. And still in the ground waiting to be discovered. We are constantly evolving, if you don’t see it, its because you’re not looking or you just don’t want to understand it. Evolution is fact. Gods are superstition.

            Raised in a secular Jewish home, Gould did not formally practice religion and preferred to be called an agnostic.[9] When asked directly if he was an agnostic in Skeptic magazine, he responded:

            “If you absolutely forced me to bet on the existence of a conventional anthropomorphic deity, of course I’d bet no. But, basically, Huxley was right when he said that agnosticism is the only honorable position because we really cannot know. And that’s right. I’d be real surprised if there turned out to be a conventional God.”

            Uh oh, he doesn’t believe in your superstition either. Weird.

          • George

            your answer has presented no fact. Just the usual assertion- ‘evolution is fact’ (with nothing to back up) What have you seen to be evolving that I haven’t seen yet?

            “The deeper one penetrates into natures secrets, the greater becomes ones respect for God” Albert Einstein

            “I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology…I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science” (Soren Lovtrup embryologist; Darwinism:the refutation of a myth)

          • OhNoodlyOne

            If you’ve made it to adulthood and paid any attention in any science class, and you still don’t understand evolution AT ALL, then you must be either deeply brainwashed or stupid. Which is it George?

          • George

            ease up there professor. have you not paid any attention to all my statements and quotes and facts I provided?

            Truth is, you don’t want to believe in God. The bible teaches man is born in sin, and is naturally rebellious towards God and his authority.

            That’s why im not surprised by those who claim to be ‘atheist’ and yourself. Your only acting as the the bible clearly says here –

            “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” Romans 1:18-20

          • OhNoodlyOne

            I’m not a professor, George. Yet I still don’t believe in your invisible friend. Sorry, common sense and reason beat your superstition every time. That whole last paragraph^ is nonsense. The only thing plain to me about your god and all of your silly “quotes” from people who never existed is that you’re a gullible sheep without his own thoughts. It must suck to live like that. Wickedness LOL you need to get out more, have a little fun. Otherwise you’re going to die a bitter old man. Shouldn’t be long now.

          • George

            neither do I believe in your invisible friend and god in which you have blind faith in-“chance”
            More like your gullible my friend. Our claim comes from the logical conclusion that since we see design and irreducible mechanisms in creation all around us, and since there is always a first cause when something comes into existence, we conclude their was a creator/builder/intelligent designer.
            Your claim is that all this came about by nothing. Exactly like saying a whirlwind going through a junkyard can accidently build a space shuttle. But then, you also have to explain where the whirlwind came from and the junk…..

          • OhNoodlyOne

            Ignorance is all you have George. Just because you don’t understand science doesn’t make it not true. I’m not your friend either George, please stop calling me that. I have higher standards.

          • George

            a few sketchy fossils do not make a case for such a fantasy as evolution,
            take the homo erectus example, the cranial (brain) capacity is roughly
            the same as a normal humans, there is good evidence he used tools and their posture was just like ours. now, look at the kow swamp individuals
            (fossils) for example (you can google) found in Australia that have
            been dated from about 10000 -6000 years ago and they look almost identical to homo erectus and yet they are not explained in evolutionary terms.
            That is, the strong erectus-like features are not explained by evolution from apes, but by other non-evolutionary mechanisms such as the climate, nutritional problems, genetic factors, and others. So why should we need evolution to explain ‘normal erectus’ when we can explain it by other non-evolutionary factors? Evolutionists have just undone the whole idea of human evolution! Here’s the conundrum: it is unthinkable that these individuals weren’t human due to the ‘young’ date, but if they were human, then normal erectus must be human also.

          • OhNoodlyOne

            You really shouldn’t try to understand evolution by getting information from christian websites. Of course it doesn’t make sense to you if you don’t look to any reputable scientific sites or books. Read a different book George.

          • George

            most of the quotes I use are from actual atheist sources. Im just trying to show you that though they stick to their circular arguments of evolution, they concede that actual evidence is very scant for such an amazing claim that life came about from nothing by random unguided processes.

            “If pressed about mans ancestry, i would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional species to man, including lucy…if further pressed, I would have to state there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving” (Richard Leakey PBS documentary)
            so much for ‘evolution is fact’….

          • OhNoodlyOne

            Where life came from is different than evolution. If you would read a different book you would understand that.

          • Chuckles McTruck

            Okay. So Voltron is real, then. I’ve seen it on television.

  • robertzaccour

    In time have grown to feel more sorry for people that are evil than anger. People aren’t born that way. They changed at some point. Also everyone is somebody’s baby. Let’s pray for these kinds of people.

    • axelbeingcivil

      This guy isn’t evil. He suffered some sort of psychotic break, either due to drug use or mental defect. It’s horrible and unpleasant but he’s a victim of circumstance as much as the other person. Imagine having to live with this on your conscience.

  • Gena B

    If no drugs were detected, they will hopefully look into this guys mental state, posts online etc.. to see if there is a history or something leading up to this. Even if you believe it could be demonic, you need to rule out his mental state first.

  • Eric Wagnon

    This boy lives about five houses away from my home In Jupiter, but I have never met him or his family. I am a Christian, but am not charismatic in my theology or someone that typically explains situations in terms of demons and such. There have now been some of the boy’s youtube videos released that seem odd. My speculation is that there may have been some emerging mental health issues that may have been pushed over the edge by some sort of drug. My natural inclination would be to lean toward that “scientific” explanation. However, ironically it is not really “scientific” to completely rule out some sort of evil influence from a spiritual realm (what might be termed demonic activity). That sort of thing almost by definition would not be observable within the physical realm of the traditional scientific method. Again, I’m not someone who would usually suggest demonic activity. However, this particular case is SO bizarre that I would not be surprised if there is something more going on beyond physical explanations. Perhaps it is a combination of factors between the physical and spiritual such as the drug use in a sense opening the door for a nefarious supernatural influence. In a different case, playing around with the occult or witchcraft might be another example. There are indeed some weird accounts of the paranormal out there that are tough to explain scientifically. How frequently that interplay between a physical and spiritual realm might occur is virtually impossible to prove. For all we know, it could be incredibly common or perhaps limited to rare, sensational cases such as this tragic double homicide.

    • axelbeingcivil

      Ruling something out for lack of evidence, it must be noted, is not the same as refusal to consider something. If there were evidence of demonic possession – though one wonders what that would be – that could not adequately be explained by other sources, it’d become a considered hypothesis.

      • Eric Wagnon

        Even though I’m guessing we may have differing world views, I appreciate your comments that I’ve seen throughout this section. You make some good, well-considered points. Respectful, intelligent debate is hard to find on internet comment boards. “BeingCivil” is a fitting part of your username.

        • axelbeingcivil

          Thank you. I appreciate that.

  • Amos Moses

    Satan’s Armies Still Heavily Focused On Comments Sections
    August 18, 2016

    INTERNET—Sources confirmed Thursday morning that Satan’s armies are still heavily focused on infiltrating and maintaining control of website comments sections across the web, a tactical onslaught they’ve been focused on for the better part of the past decade.

    “Comments sections are one of the primary recruiting tools Satan’s forces use to influence people toward darkness,” demonology expert Donald Velasco noted. “This is why most healthy people cannot wade too deeply into any comments section on the internet without being overwhelmed by the presence of sheer evil, as they are bombarded with words and opinions more hateful, vile, and barbaric than any mere human could concoct.”

    “During my research, I got too far down in some YouTube comments and ended up having to wash my eyeballs with paint thinner,” he added.

    While more and more publishers are closing their comments sections in an attempt to purge demonic forces from their web presence, they’re still being featured on websites far and wide.

    “The best you can do is just try to avoid them, or at least stay away from their most infamous strongholds,” Velasco noted. “If you find yourself submerged in a comments section on a site like, say, Reddit—then God help you.”

    Babylon Bee

    • sangrita

      You realize Babylon Bee is a satirical website?

      • Amos Moses

        And its funny … because its true …………

        • sangrita

          You don’t appear to understand that “satirical” means “not real”.

          • Amos Moses

            You dont seem to understand that satire is meant to be funny ………… because its true …….

          • sangrita

            Yes satire is funny, but the stories are jokes, as in “not real”.

          • Amos Moses

            Satire – (noun) – the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.